View Full Version : Analogue V digital...? Nah...!
Haselsh1
14-11-2014, 22:32
My analogue v digital
System:
Thorens TD160 B MkII/Linn LVV/Ortofon OM40
Musical Fidelity VLPS MkI with VPSU MkII
Marantz CD6005
Rotel RC850 preamp/RB850 bridged monoblocks
KEF Q500’s with NVA LS5 cables
Interconnects are Atlas Equator III for digital and Van Den Hul D102 MkIII HB for phono
Reference vinyl: Rebecca Pidgeon ‘The Raven’
Reference CD: Rebecca Pidgeon ‘The Raven’
I started by listening with my partner Sue to the whole of ‘The Raven’ on vinyl and then swapping over and listening to the whole of the album on compact disc. For those who don’t know this album it is recorded entirely in the analogue domain with no digital processing whatsoever. Obviously the CD is digitally mastered and mixed.
The compact disc sounded much more ‘pretty’ than the vinyl. The strings and solo violins sounded much more tactile and ‘rosiny’ than the vinyl but the vinyl sounded much more ‘woody’ and realistic than the CD. The CD produced a much more massive stereo soundstage than the vinyl but the vinyl had much more depth to it behind the loudspeakers.
There was a much more warmly realistic presentation to the vocals and backing vocals on vinyl whereas the CD sounded thin and lacking in comparison. The string bass was much more obvious on CD but sounded much more realistic on vinyl; I guess it was a lot more hidden on vinyl than CD.
For this listening I used Atlas Equator MkIII interconnects between CD and preamp but used Van Den Hul D102 MkIII HB’s between vinyl phono stage and preamp. The Van Den Hul’s on CD are a non starter being very sharp and incisive in the treble with a very unpleasant sound whereas the Atlas Equator’s are very smooth and controlled. I guess the next move is to use the Equator’s all round. So for my next move; a Rega phono stage or a new acrylic turntable mat and a new drive belt…? One thing I did notice was that the vinyl sounded a tad slower than the CD so maybe a new belt would be a better purchase than a phono stage. I recently used a Heed Questar MM phono stage and was so disappointed that it really wasn’t massively better than the VLPS Mk I.
Choices…! Who’d have ‘em…?
Stratmangler
14-11-2014, 22:44
How do things sound when you play proper music?
Rebecca Pidgeon's recordings strike me as being "audiophile" recordings, ie they sound very nice, but it's well dodgy material, and it all comes across to me as "aren't I clever at this music" stuff.
I'm not a fan, if you hadn't already realised :)
Now if you'd used Steven Wilson's "The Raven That Refused To Sing" I'd be right with you ....
Ali Tait
14-11-2014, 22:45
Besides that, although you are listening to the same album, how do you know how each recording was treated during the recording process?
Too many variables..
Haselsh1
14-11-2014, 22:52
and it all comes across to me as "aren't I clever at this music" stuff.
I agree with you entirely, she is unbelievably clever at this music stuff.
Stratmangler
14-11-2014, 22:52
Besides that, although you are listening to the same album, how do you know how each recording was treated during the recording process?
Too many variables..
That's very true.
Any mastering engineer worth his/her salt would tweak the studio master to achieve the best result for each format, so you're not comparing oranges with oranges.
Stratmangler
14-11-2014, 22:53
I agree with you entirely, she is unbelievably clever at this music stuff.
Sounds like she knows it too :eyebrows:
Haselsh1
14-11-2014, 23:03
Sounds like she knows it too :eyebrows:
Yes it does but then isn't that true of all musicians. They all act that way that is for sure.
Haselsh1
14-11-2014, 23:06
Ya see that fact is that once again it is a matter of different versus better. Neither version is better but they are different and they both clearly showed the difference between cables and ancilliaries. I cannot honestly say which I prefer but vinyl does certainly have that 'romantic' edge over CD.
Both have their charms...
One gives you exercise :)
Ali Tait
15-11-2014, 00:14
:D
Both have their charms...
One gives you exercise :)
and the terrors(ali):lol:
Ali Tait
15-11-2014, 00:34
Aye, that digital shit gives me the willies..:D
Would likely been the same.....that deck is worth more than my whole system :eek:
Ali Tait
15-11-2014, 01:01
Que?
I'm a 100% analogue man; no digital replay equipment goes through my system. I don't like the sound of CDs one bit, and I don't find all the 'it's just the mastering ''stuff very convincing. And I certainly don't wish to 'stream'....I save that for our little Denon streamer and multi-room speakers which provide backround music in various rooms. Very useful it is, and well-priced too. But high quality sound....no way.
It's all a matter of pure opinion...but the killer fact is that this conversation is even possible 30 years after Cd launched 'perfect sound forever.' If Cd was any good, vinyl would have disappeared, instead of actually growing. It's not all nostalgia, it's people who actually listen.....
The greatness of vinyl was probably an accident, digital companies know that quantity not quality is what makes the money. I wouldn't hold my breath for any sudden reversion to high quality sound. Must be a pessimist.
I'm a 100% analogue man; no digital replay equipment goes through my system. I don't like the sound of CDs one bit, and I don't find all the 'it's just the mastering ''stuff very convincing. .
Neither do I. Really it is only of relevance if we are talking about red book digital versus 'higher resolution' formats where I have yet to be convinced (by audible demonstration) that the difference is down to anything other than different mastering.
With vinyl vs digital we are talking about two very different forms of replay, hardly a surprise that they will sound different even using the same master. Even then swap the cd player for another one you will get a different presentation again. Swap the cartridge, swap the arm, again different.
At least with digital you can guarantee you are listening to the recording being replayed at the correct speed...
Firebottle
15-11-2014, 12:34
The greatness of vinyl was probably an accident.........
No way. Vinyl replay has had a looong time of development and research in every fundamental aspect resulting in stunning performance.
It is one of the most improved transducer systems in history.
:cool: Alan
Haselsh1
15-11-2014, 12:41
At least with digital you can guarantee you are listening to the recording being replayed at the correct speed...
Yeah that I did notice. My vinyl is playing everso slightly slow. Not sure whether a new drive belt would cure it. I may also buy a rather trendy white acrylic turntable mat as well. I also have a winning bid on a Rega Fono phono stage on ebay at the moment but of course I'm not guaranteed to win it.
How old is your existing belt? Certainly worth trying a new one since they are not expensive, an easy fix if it works.
Haselsh1
15-11-2014, 12:47
I've been comparing a Quantic and Spanky Wilson album once again on vinyl and compact disc and once again, I'm not 100% sure either way. There is a truly gorgeous warmth to the vinyl and a definite naturalness to vocals and midrange instruments but the bass is much more powerful on the CD. The vinyl has a much better stereo focus between the loudspeakers but goes back a long way over the CD which is all much closer to the listener. The CD is thinner and more contrived and artificial but the vinyl lacks power and guts and weight or heft. It is such a shame but I think I am going to have to investigate in much greater detail with endless listening sessions. It's a tough life really.
Haselsh1
15-11-2014, 12:49
Macca, the belt came with the turntable about a year ago so I have no idea in all honesty and it is shameful that I haven't replaced it before now.
Gordon Steadman
15-11-2014, 12:50
I've been comparing a Quantic and Spanky Wilson album once again on vinyl and compact disc and once again, I'm not 100% sure either way. There is a truly gorgeous warmth to the vinyl and a definite naturalness to vocals and midrange instruments but the bass is much more powerful on the CD. The vinyl has a much better stereo focus between the loudspeakers but goes back a long way over the CD which is all much closer to the listener. The CD is thinner and more contrived and artificial but the vinyl lacks power and guts and weight or heft. It is such a shame but I think I am going to have to investigate in much greater detail with endless listening sessions. It's a tough life really.
Interesting about the bass.
Must be down to the system. I find the bass is far better on my TT. Depth and cleanliness. The CDP is a Pioneer stable platter and sounds very similar to the vinyl over most of its range.
In my view implementation is everything. Vinyl is very technically accomplished for what it is, but on paper a red book cd should kill it and dance on its grave. The fact that is usually doesn't has less to do with the superiorty of vinyl as a medium and more to do with the system being used to replay the CD. In Shaun's case I am wondering if the Rotel pre-amp may be a 'bottleneck' as they say.
At Scalford in 2012 the only CD fronted system I though delivered the really good sound that the medium is capable of was Serge Auckland's. Whereas almost all of the vinyl fronted set ups sounded good to superb.
Listening to ripped CDs at Jason's (Figlet) place on his system, listening to CDs at Marco's place and my own results at home (when my lash-up is on song) have convinced me that it is possible to get the 'pure, perfect sound forever' effect, although what exactly it is that so often holds the performance of CD back is still a puzzle to me. A lot of people don't even accept there is a problem, which doesn't help.
Haselsh1
15-11-2014, 13:03
Gordon, please be aware that my phono stage leaves a lot to be desired in hi-fi terms. It is budget in the extreme and really does need replacing but to what...? I have tried so many different kinds and not been really impressed with any of them. Not one has shouted to me "Buy me...!"
Haselsh1
15-11-2014, 13:10
I did try a different preamp last year, a Fidelity Audio Pre-120 but sold it on as to me, the Rotel was just as good but a lot more flexible.
Hi Shaun,
seems to me that you are answering your own question, as you say your torn between the two ,the fact that a 35 year old + mid price t/table and arm
running into a reasonable budget phonostage can even compete with a modern Marantz CD player say's it all.
On the subject of your belt if you replace it make sure you get a proper thorens one that is right for the TD160, a lot of the ebay ones are too small and affect the suspension, try cleaning your existing belt in hot water with a bit of washing up liquid, dry then coat in talc so its just lightly coated , clean your inner platter rim
and motor pulley and refit, a thorens belt should almost be falling off when the deck is not running .
cheers
Paul
Haselsh1
15-11-2014, 13:33
Hi Shaun,
seems to me that you are answering your own question, as you say your torn between the two ,the fact that a 35 year old + mid price t/table and arm
running into a reasonable budget phonostage can even compete with a modern Marantz CD player say's it all.
On the subject of your belt if you replace it make sure you get a proper thorens one that is right for the TD160, a lot of the ebay ones are too small and affect the suspension, try cleaning your existing belt in hot water with a bit of washing up liquid, dry then coat in talc so its just lightly coated , clean your inner platter rim
and motor pulley and refit, a thorens belt should almost be falling off when the deck is not running .
cheers
Paul
Mmm... interesting one that I hadn't even thought of.
I certainly prefer the whole ethos of vinyl over compact disc as that is what I grew up with back in the late sixties and seventies but there are a couple of aspects of the whole CD sound that I like. It brings me to valves...! That purity of voice and midrange and that lucidity is just beautiful but not for me any longer I'm afraid.
Haselsh1
15-11-2014, 13:37
Paul, thank you for the advice on the turntable belt, I shall try it out this weekend.
Gordon Steadman
15-11-2014, 13:46
Gordon, please be aware that my phono stage leaves a lot to be desired in hi-fi terms. It is budget in the extreme and really does need replacing but to what...? I have tried so many different kinds and not been really impressed with any of them. Not one has shouted to me "Buy me...!"
You could try Alan's (Firebottle) loan machine. I assume its still doing the rounds. Having said that, the bass is better with the Creek stage as well so I guess it really is very system dependent.
ive got a new thorens 160 belt on order from germany to have as a spare. theyre a little dearer but the right ones. as paul says the belt should just grip and no more until the speed is selected.
Hi Shaun,
While your working on the Thorens it would be a good idea to check the suspension bounce as its vital for top performance.
this site is great for tips and tweaks, http://www.theanalogdept.com/thorens_td_160_dept_.htm
Cheers
Paul
Gordon Steadman
15-11-2014, 13:58
I just fettled a Thorens TD126 Mk 3 for someone and the belt was slipping badly. Got a new one from Germany and the deck was immediately speed stable and up to speed in half the time.
One advantage of the freestanding motor idea is that one can just take up any stretch. I wonder if anyone has tried a sort of chain adjuster idea.
Haselsh1
18-11-2014, 16:05
Just to add another to this thread, over this last weekend, I tried connecting the turntable directly to the inbuilt phono stage in the Rotel RC850 preamp. What a revelation. The sound is now very much cleaner and clearer than with the VLPS MkI even with the VPSU Mk II with a much tighter focus of the central stereo image but the bass doesn't go down quite as deep. There is more high frequency information which is much more sharply defined but overall, an awful lot cleaner.
So, this has now given me an idea; I think I would be much better off with a Croft Micro 25 or Micro 25 R preamp with its inbuilt phono stage as this will also improve the quality of CD as well. I think that the R model would be overkill but I think that one of these preamps would work perfectly with the Rotel RB850 monoblock power amps.
Haselsh1
18-11-2014, 16:06
Of course this now means that I find vinyl LP playback superior to CD playback especially with regard to stereo focus and certainly depth.
Neither do I. Really it is only of relevance if we are talking about red book digital versus 'higher resolution' formats where I have yet to be convinced (by audible demonstration) that the difference is down to anything other than different mastering.
With vinyl vs digital we are talking about two very different forms of replay, hardly a surprise that they will sound different even using the same master. Even then swap the cd player for another one you will get a different presentation again. Swap the cartridge, swap the arm, again different.
At least with digital you can guarantee you are listening to the recording being replayed at the correct speed...
And also if vinyl music is reproduced on a fundamentally speed-accucrate device, such as the best direct-drive T/T designs ;)
So taking your comments further, how would you say the Sinatra recording of ‘Live at the Sands’, I sent you recently, recorded from my T/T (using vinyl produced from the original master tapes), compares with other music recordings you have on CD, derived in the all-digital recording domain? :)
Marco.
Of course this now means that I find vinyl LP playback superior to CD playback especially with regard to stereo focus and certainly depth.
I had to comment as your sig mentions Ozric Tentacles... I have the first three CD releases on the 'Dove' label and they sound amazing, if a little crisp. These discs tend to suffer rot sadly (my copy of Erpland is now unplayable at the end of the disc). The re-releases from the mid 90's sounded far 'flatter' in perspective and I thought the absolute phase had been changed in the remastering. Interesting that today, theselater discs don't sound anything like as bad and 'The Throbbe' is incredible again...
I can't comment on your vinyl/CD opinion, as I've long gone past the point of comparing now ;)
So taking your comments further, how would you say the Sinatra recording of ‘Live at the Sands’, I sent you recently, recorded from my T/T (using vinyl produced from the original master tapes), compares with other music recordings you have on CD, derived in the all-digital recording domain? :)
:popcorn: :popcorn:
Marco.
And also if vinyl music is reproduced on a fundamentally speed-accucrate device, such as the best direct-drive T/T designs ;)
So taking your comments further, how would you say the Sinatra recording of ‘Live at the Sands’, I sent you recently, recorded from my T/T (using vinyl produced from the original master tapes), compares with other music recordings you have on CD, derived in the all-digital recording domain? :)
Marco.
I am one of those strange people who will always prefer a good digital recording to a good analogue one. Although don't get me wrong it is not something I lose sleep over. Since the Sinatra is a very, very good analogue recording but no digital recording of the same event exists it is difficult to say without comparing apples and oranges. I'm of the view that if they had digital recording back in '66 and those performances were recorded digitally it would be superior to the analogue recording - by a fair margin.
I will do a comparison at some point between the CD release and the vinyl/CDR since that will be interesting. From memory I would say the vinyl CDR is actually more realistic in terms of how it reproducers Sinatra's voice. The CD is a little more smoothed over. But I'm not commiting to anything until I have done the back to back :)
Hi Martin,
I am one of those strange people who will always prefer a good digital recording to a good analogue one.
Strange is good, but in terms of your above statement re. digital recordings, I have to ask WHY? Whether a recording is digitally produced or not shouldn’t be the issue. What matters is what you enjoy most and sounds best to your ears, so in that respect you have to keep an open mind.
Therefore, I couldn’t give a damn whether a particular recording I liked was digital or analogue. However, being a ‘digital fanboy’, for the sake of it (unless you can provide a better explanation for your preference), to me seems rather silly.
Since the Sinatra is a very, very good analogue recording but no digital recording of the same event exists it is difficult to say without comparing apples and oranges.
You’re missing the point though, and this touches on what I wrote on your gallery thread - if the claimed measurable (hugely) greater distortion of vinyl replay, and conversely superior clarity/accuracy of digital is true, then why isn’t that effect audible on the vinyl rip of the Sinatra album I sent you on CD?
I guarantee that when you find your commercial (digitally produced) CD of the same album, or buy another one of the same, it will sound near-indistinguishable to the copy I sent you, recorded from my T/T. Therefore, where does that put the claim (some would say fact) that digital is more accurate? The fact is, it can’t be more accurate if in a revealing hi-fi system you can’t hear the difference!!
And if the supposed ‘greater accuracy’ of digital manifests itself in a way that isn’t clearly audible in a high-quality hi-fi system, then why worry about what you can’t hear?
*That*, muchacho, is my point :)
I'm of the view that if they had digital recording back in '66 and those performances were recorded digitally it would be superior to the analogue recording - by a fair margin.
Why exactly?? I have to be honest and say that you’re coming across as having a rather ‘rigidly held’ mindset on this matter, without any real reason for that other than ‘you’re a bit strange’, or perhaps are simply a stubborn-minded, dyed-in-the-wool digital fanboy! :ner:
;)
The facts are that I’ve just sent you a recording of a Frank Sinatra album, on vinyl, produced from the original master tapes from the 1950s, recorded on my T/T, which sounds near-indistinguishable from a modern digitally produced CD of the same album, but that aspects of the recording I sent, you feel sound more realistic.
Now if, as you say, today’s digital recoding techniques would improve matters - and by a fair margin - then why doesn’t the digitally produced CD sound FAR better than the copy I sent you, produced from a vinyl rip? Surely, if your claim was true, then the effect (digital sonic superiority) would be clearly audible??
I will do a comparison at some point between the CD release and the vinyl/CDR since that will be interesting. From memory I would say the vinyl CDR is actually more realistic in terms of how it reproducers Sinatra's voice. The CD is a little more smoothed over. But I'm not commiting to anything until I have done the back to back :)
I think you really need to do that, as at the moment, your argument in preference for digital isn’t stacking up, especially when you’re saying that the CDR I sent you makes Sinatra’s voice sound more real………………………!
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
19-11-2014, 10:11
I think you really need to do that, as at the moment, your argument in preference for digital isn’t stacking up, especially when you’re saying that the CDR I sent you makes Sinatra’s voice sound more real………………………!
Marco.
I think we have had this discussion before. Every time I've made a digital copy of an LP, the result has been better than the commercial CD release of the same music. Who knows why this might be. Maybe CDRs actually sound better than CDs or maybe the magic of the vinyl is getting through.
It doesn't actually matter of course. All that does matter is that the music be enjoyed.
I totally agree, Gordon!
However, when claims of digital accuracy/superiority are being made, I want to be able to identify them, audibly, in the REAL world, and not simply ‘on paper’.
Surely, if such claims are true, then it shouldn’t be too difficult to demonstrate the sonic effect in a high-resolution hi-fi system, when comparing two sources (one analogue and one digital) of comparable quality, reproducing their respective music formats of the same album? :)
Marco.
Marco your previous post is a long one and needs a comprehensive answer which I can't do right now as at work. But for now imagine you were back in 1966 at the Sands Hotel and Casino and you had the capability to record the performance digitally in addition to the analogue recording already being made.
Which recording do you think you would prefer? Which would sound more 'life-like'?
We can't do that, all we can do is replay the analogue recording via LP or RTR, or we can digitally master it and play it back on CD. The digital replay will be limited by the quality of the analogue recording and the quality of the mastering job. So you cannot use it to compare analogue to digital. In addition it maybe that the digital replay actually shows up flaws in the recording that are not shown up by the anlaogue replay. So superior playback format = worse subjective sound.
Oldpinkman
19-11-2014, 13:50
Surely, if such claims are true, then it shouldn’t be too difficult to demonstrate the sonic effect in a high-resolution hi-fi system, when comparing two sources (one analogue and one digital) of comparable quality, reproducing their respective music formats of the same album? :)
Marco.
There are so many interesting issues here about "accurate" or "better". The analogue that was so good is being heard by Martin - as a digital recording on a CDR. So how ever good analogue is, digital is that good too, in the context of the recording Martin is listening to.
But whilst modern digital is therefore very good - I think Martin underestimates how good analogue can be.
It will be interesting to see what James (Sovereign) thinks when he comes to listen to my system. I have a few recent albums as vinyl and CD - with the CD supplied with the vinyl. I know we prefer (marginally) the vinyl versions. This is unlikely to be a limitation of digital recording per se, since the bloody vinyl was digitally mastered. But it would seem to be a limitation of red book 16 bit.
When I visited James' house the other night I took round Dave Migden's latest CD - which is 100% analogue mastered. See James' comments on my BMU safety thread
Yes it was great to meet up, great to be introduced to some new music, namely David Midgen, an supremely well recorded album, probably the best recording I've heard to date, and local to Kent as well!
I am trying to get them to release it on vinyl but they are hard up and it is costly having the vinyl mastering. They keep promising. It will be interesting to see what James thinks when he hears some real old all analogue - I think Joan Armatrading is going to blow him away ;)
But whilst modern digital is therefore very good - I think Martin underestimates how good analogue can be.
)
Nope. More likely you are underestimating how good digital can be. That's not uncommon. Most digital systems are poorly implemented.
Oldpinkman
19-11-2014, 15:09
Nope. More likely you are underestimating how good digital can be. That's not uncommon. Most digital systems are poorly implemented.
Maybe. But the guys in the band have access to very high quality digital recording facilities ( 2 of them run a studio which is all digital) and chose to go to a specialist analogue studio for their recording.
Again, it will be interesting when James comes round, if we can sort our total non-compatibility of interconnects, to compare his DAC which he is so keen on with the venerable DaCapo. But in my experience DaCapo runs analogue closer than anything else I've heard - but just isn't as good.
That's a 16 bit issue. CD's FLAC are never quite as good as vinyl. Clearly the 24 bit which is used to produce the modern vinyl is at least as good as the LP. I still find that modern LP's (digitally mastered) don't quite have that "naturalness" that the best all analogue does. And James response to the all analogue mastered Dave Migden - on a CD - was interesting.
What's so well implemented in your system that I'm missing?
Marco your previous post is a long one and needs a comprehensive answer which I can't do right now as at work. But for now imagine you were back in 1966 at the Sands Hotel and Casino and you had the capability to record the performance digitally in addition to the analogue recording already being made.
Which recording do you think you would prefer? Which would sound more 'life-like'?
We can't do that, all we can do is replay the analogue recording via LP or RTR, or we can digitally master it and play it back on CD. The digital replay will be limited by the quality of the analogue recording and the quality of the mastering job. So you cannot use it to compare analogue to digital. In addition it maybe that the digital replay actually shows up flaws in the recording that are not shown up by the anlaogue replay. So superior playback format = worse subjective sound.
I understand all that, Martin. However, you’re still missing the main point of my argument.
You hear all the time, from the pro-digital camp, about the ‘inherent distortions’ (measurable too, apparently) of vinyl playback. Right?
Well my point is, demonstrate to me, using your system or mine, where these distortions exist on the vinyl rip I’ve provided you of the Sinatra album, in comparison with the commercial, all digitally produced, version available on CD - and if you can’t - then either they don’t exist, are grossly exaggerated, or are beyond the limitations of audibility.
If it’s the latter, then why worry about what you can’t hear? If it’s the former, then quite clearly, there’s more to the story than what the maths or measurements are telling us, in terms of what is represented by ‘accuracy’, or more importantly as far as recorded music is concerned, that which genuinely sounds more lifelike/real.
Got it now, daftee? :)
Marco.
Maybe. But the guys in the band have access to very high quality digital recording facilities ( 2 of them run a studio which is all digital) and chose to go to a specialist analogue studio for their recording.
Indeed, as do many other recording artists who care as passionately about the sound quality of their music recordings, as they do about producing the music itself in the first place.
It’s no coincidence, therefore, that these types of recordings are amongst the finest sounding many of us here own (I could cite many such examples from my own music collection), as well as jazz and classical recordings on vinyl, from the late 1950s, produced using all-valve, all-analogue equipment, which sound utterly stunning and considerably better than any all-digital recordings I have, so clearly there is something in it.
Marco.
Well the distortion thing is really a bit of a red herring. As you know I have pretty much stock SL1200 albeit fitted with a quality cart and my vinyl sounds bloody good with no end of side distortion, or audible distortions of any kind. I do find that digital benefits from lower noise and higher dynamic range. In particular the lower nose floor really opens up the recording, particularly if it is a good one, letting me hear right into the mix. It doesn't matter how good your record playing system is it cannot come close to that. Now this will not bother a lot of people, they will be looking for something else in the replay. I like to listen as though I am at the desk in the studio, I like a forensic sound.
Pinky - I know/have known a lot of musicians, I can only think of one who prefers analogue and he is a bit of a romantic. The rest would no more record in analogue than they would use a pony and trap instead of a car - that is how they regard analogue recording - vastly inferior and totally outmoded. We used to argue about it until I saw/was shown the light.
There is nothing wrong with red book cd. It misses nothing. By increasing the bits/sampling all you do is increase dynamic range (red book already has more than any recording actually uses) and frequency response. And since red book will go to 21Khz and there is a)nothing on the recording near that and b) you canlt hear it anyway - what is the point of so called 'hi rez' - except to make money, of course?
Implementing CD properly: you need a CD player with good power supplies and a pre-amp that doesn't add noise. Marco's system a good example of this. I cheat by using a passive pre but it is just as effective.
I do find that digital benefits from lower noise and higher dynamic range. In particular the lower nose floor really opens up the recording, particularly if it is a good one, letting me hear right into the mix. It doesn't matter how good your record playing system is it cannot come close to that. Now this will not bother a lot of people, they will be looking for something else in the replay. I like to listen as though I am at the desk in the studio, I like a forensic sound.
Indeed, and you’re already on record as saying that, apart from two tiny clicks, lasting no longer than a nanosecond each (which I could easily remove using the software I have), the Sinatra recording I provided you with, from a vinyl rip, is undistinguishable from a digital recording. You can’t get much more forensic than that.
Therefore, where is this “lower noise floor”, with digital, of which you speak? When you find your own CD of the Sinatra album in question, do the comparison with the CDR I gave you, and see if you can readily identify the lower noise floor of the former, or indeed anything else about it that to your ears is sonically superior. If not, then your argument for digital superiority, in terms of accuracy, is null and void.
The fact is, Martin, if you have to strain so hard to hear a difference, then the difference *must* be insignificant, almost to the point of irrelevance! ;)
Pinky - I know/have known a lot of musicians, I can only think of one who prefers analogue and he is a bit of a romantic. The rest would no more record in analogue than they would use a pony and trap instead of a car - that is how they regard analogue recording - vastly inferior and totally outmoded.
Lol - clearly, the musicians you know only represent the mainstream. There are umpteen specialist labels (recording studios), using all-analogue equipment, which are specifically chosen by discerning musicians, seeking to achieve the most realistic sound when their music is recorded. They certainly don’t choose that process (or those studios) for reasons of ‘romance’!
Marco.
Oldpinkman
19-11-2014, 16:20
Implementing CD properly: you need a CD player with good power supplies and a pre-amp that doesn't add noise. Marco's system a good example of this. I cheat by using a passive pre but it is just as effective.
Really? One day we must have a beer...
Lets see what James thinks :cool:
Indeed, and you’re already on record as saying that, apart from two tiny clicks, lasting no longer than a nanosecond each (which I could easily remove using the software I have), the Sinatra recording I provided you with, from a vinyl rip, is undistinguishable from a digital recording. You can’t get much more forensic than that.
Therefore, where is this “lower noise floor”, with digital, of which you speak? When you find your own CD of the Sinatra album in question, do the comparison with the CDR I gave you, and see if you can readily identify the lower noise floor of the former, or indeed anything else about it that to your ears is sonically superior. If not, then your argument for digital superiority, in terms of accuracy, is null and void.
The fact is, Martin, if you have to strain so hard to hear a difference, then the difference *must* be insignificant, almost to the point of irrelevance! ;)
Lol - clearly, the musicians you know only represent the mainstream. There are umpteen specialist labels (recording studios), using all-analogue equipment, which are specifically chosen by discerning musicians, seeking to achieve the most realistic sound when their music is recorded. They certainly don’t choose that process (or those studios) for reasons of ‘romance’!
Marco.
Noise floor is not the same as noises like clicks and pops. Two different things. And those analogue studios - sorry but the reason those muscicians use them is entirely romantic, or to give them a USP. I think KISS did an all analogue recording just a couple of years back, trying to recapture their Seventies sound.
Nothing wrong with that it is an artistic decision and the analogue sound forms part of the album just as much as the playing does. But in performance terms it is a bit like doing a rally in a 1972 Ford Escort instead of a 2014 Subaru.
Really? One day we must have a beer...
Lets see what James thinks :cool:
We must. And who is James?
Noise floor is not the same as noises like clicks and pops. Two different things.
So define the difference between them then, and most importantly, if the superior ‘noise floor’ you’re referring to with digital is inaudible (and exists purely on paper), as appears to be the case when comparing my vinyl rip of the Sinatra album with your CD version, then it’s pretty much irrelevant, isn’t it? :ner:
And those analogue studios - sorry but the reason those muscicians use them is entirely romantic, or to give them a USP.
Sorry, I completely disagree - and for good reason. Clearly, that sometimes happens (a euphonic sound sought rather than an accurate one), but it’s far from being universally the case when musicians choose the use of vintage audio technology when recording their music.
Why is it then that the CDs I own, partly produced using the best vintage analogue recording equipment, sound much better (and I will demonstrate that to you next time) than those I’ve got produced using solely modern digital recording equipment? If the former were all about ‘romance’, then that simply wouldn’t happen.
I think KISS did an all analogue recording just a couple of years back, trying to recapture their Seventies sound.
That’s merely an example of where you’re right. I could equally provide examples where in that respect you are, quite clearly, wrong! ;)
Why do you think I use valve equipment, based on 1950s technology? Because I’m on a nostalgia trip (I wasn’t even born then), or because I want to create a ‘romantic sound'?
You know that’s not me, and that my system doesn’t sound like that, so think about why some musicians might feel the same way I do about sound, when recording their music, and thus choose vintage gear to facilitate the process……...
Marco.
Oldpinkman
19-11-2014, 17:23
We must. And who is James?
James is Sovereign. I went round to his nuclear bunker to listen to his system on his Balanced Power Supply and took a few toons round - including the Dave Migden. I quoted from his post on my BMU thread at post 43 on this thread. He liked the analogue recording. It's very different - an "all in" approach. I've quoted the sleeve notes about how it was recorded somewhere previously.
Oi, Macca, have you given up now on our wee debate? :eyebrows:
Marco.
Oldpinkman
20-11-2014, 09:10
You know that’s not me, and that my system doesn’t sound like that, so think about why some musicians might feel the same way I do about sound, when recording their music, and thus choose vintage gear to facilitate the process……...
Marco.
I'm sort of straddling both sides of this debate, but I think the reference to musicians and their choices isn't a "slam dunk". I am married to one, but I feel no need to defer to her opinion on how I listen to music, and what's accurate. More to the point, when a musician chooses musical instrument equipment they are making a sound, not faithfully copying one. I use a valve guitar amp because I like the sound it makes - the sound it creates - but I feel no need to "shape" the music I listen to in HiFi by using a valve amp.
And NO. I am not saying because my valve amp "shapes" the music that your HiFi valve amp must do the same. I am just saying that a musicians endorsement of valve amps might be for creative rather than HiFi reasons.
None of which of course relates to using 2 inch tape on a Studer for Dave Migdens recording - which is analogue. ;)
I totally get where you’re coming from, Richard, and agree :)
However the point I’m making is that I use 1950s (and 1960s) amplifier and loudspeaker technology in my system in order to create, to my ears, the most lifelike musical sound possible from my digital and analogue sources, therefore some musicians (indeed I know this to be the case) also seek to achieve the same from the recordings they make of their music.
Therefore, the point I’m making is that the valve amps and ‘ancient speakers’ in my system are integral to the system achieving the musical realism it does, rather than them acting as some type of deliberate sound filter. In that respect, some musicians seek to use all-analogue equipment (and often valve microphones and mixing desks) because they fundamentally believe that by doing so the recordings produced sound more lifelike (and faithful to the real sound of their instruments and voices) than would’ve been the case had they used modern, solid-state all-digital processes.
In my experience, it’s a fallacy to say that musicians using old technology to record their music is done simply out of reasons of romance. It happens sometimes, for sure, but it’s far from being universally the case. That would the same as saying that’s what I’m doing by choosing the vintage equipment I have in my system (deliberately creating a euphonic effect), when we all know, certainly those who’ve heard my system, that’s not true.
In effect, therefore, the goal of some musicians and mine are the same, although their concerns are with the recording process, and mine, with playback - but what we have in common is in seeking that ‘magic sound’ which, in my experience (and that of many others), only the best analogue and valve technology can deliver.
If your experience in that area differs, then you really should pay me a visit sometime and have a listen to the system. In terms of your views of valves, Techies and 'big old wardrobes', it could be a learning curve ;)
Marco.
So define the difference between them then, and most importantly, if the superior ‘noise floor’ you’re referring to with digital is inaudible (and exists purely on paper), as appears to be the case when comparing my vinyl rip of the Sinatra album with your CD version, then it’s pretty much irrelevant, isn’t it? :ner:
'In audio, recording, and broadcast systems audio noise refers to the residual low level sound (usually hiss and hum) that is heard in quiet periods of programme'
From Wikipedia. In the case of the Sinatra you will have hiss from the tape the performance was recorded on. Played back on vinyl you will have surface noise. Record digitally, replay digitally, you lower noise to negligible levels. Does it matter if it can only be heard in quiet periods of programme? Well that is entirely subjective. It doesn't bother most of us that much. But - just because you can only hear it in quiet passages does not mean it is not there the whole time, degrading the replay even when you cannot separately distinguish it. Aside from masking low-level information on the recording it also reduces the signal to noise ratio and therefore the total dynamic range of the recording. You may recall at your place we listened to ZZTop's first album on CD. We could clearly hear the tape hiss. Do you think when this was recorded that ZZ Top wanted all that hiss on the recording ? No of course not but it was 1970 and it was all they had to work with.
Sorry, I completely disagree - and for good reason. Clearly, that sometimes happens (a euphonic sound sought rather than an accurate one), but it’s far from being universally the case when musicians choose the use of vintage audio technology when recording their music.
Why is it then that the CDs I own, partly produced using the best vintage analogue recording equipment, sound much better (and I will demonstrate that to you next time) than those I’ve got produced using solely modern digital recording equipment? If the former were all about ‘romance’, then that simply wouldn’t happen.
'Sound much better' is very subjective. I'm happy that you prefer that sound. But it is subjectively better - to you personally, and not technically better.That’s merely an example of where you’re right. I could equally provide examples where in that respect you are, quite clearly, wrong! ;)
Why do you think I use valve equipment, based on 1950s technology? Because I’m on a nostalgia trip (I wasn’t even born then), or because I want to create a ‘romantic sound'?
Your amps don't sound like valve amps, they don't sound like anything really, possibly the highest accolade any amp can be given. But I fail to see how the use of vacuum tubes in amps has anything to do with digital recording and playback. You can record digitally and still use valves everywhere if you wanted to.
You know that’s not me, and that my system doesn’t sound like that, so think about why some musicians might feel the same way I do about sound, when recording their music, and thus choose vintage gear to facilitate the process……...
I agree there is nothing romantic about how your system sounds. Some of your recordings that may be a different matter. There may be some musicians who agree with you, a tiny minority though. All the big names record digitally even though they have the resources to do it any way they damn well please. Steely Dan/Becker-Fagen being a good example.
..
What’s with this highlighted text pish, dude? It makes it very hard to quote and reply to! Anyway….
In audio, recording, and broadcast systems audio noise refers to the residual low level sound (usually hiss and hum) that is heard in quiet periods of programme'
From Wikipedia. In the case of the Sinatra you will have hiss from the tape the performance was recorded on. Played back on vinyl you will have surface noise. Record digitally, replay digitally, you lower noise to negligible levels. Does it matter if it can only be heard in quiet periods of programme? Well that is entirely subjective. It doesn't bother most of us that much. But - just because you can only hear it in quiet passages does not mean it is not there the whole time, degrading the replay even when you cannot separately distinguish it. Aside from masking low-level information on the recording it also reduces the signal to noise ratio and therefore the total dynamic range of the recording. You may recall at your place we listened to ZZTop's first album on CD. We could clearly hear the tape hiss. Do you think when this was recorded that ZZ Top wanted all that hiss on the recording ? No of course not but it was 1970 and it was all they had to work with.
I don’t have a problem with any of that, but like I’ve repeatedly said, listen to the vinyl-ripped Sinatra CDR I sent you and compare it directly with the all-digitally produced commercial CD you’ve got of the same album, and then tell me if you can hear any difference in the residual low-level sound/‘noise floor’ between both recordings.
If in that respect you can’t detect any difference between them, then quite simply, in the context of replay through a quality hi-fi system, I’ve succeeded in making vinyl sound as ‘accurate’/low-noise as digital, and so you should readjust your opinion on the matter - simples! :)
'Sound much better' is very subjective. I'm happy that you prefer that sound. But it is subjectively better - to you personally, and not technically better.
Sure, but I’m confident that if I demonstrated my point, by playing you the albums concerned, you’d agree. “Technically better” means nothing unless, in the real world, it can be proven to mean sounding more lifelike.
Your amps don't sound like valve amps, they don't sound like anything really, possibly the highest accolade any amp can be given. But I fail to see how the use of vacuum tubes in amps has anything to do with digital recording and playback. You can record digitally and still use valves everywhere if you wanted to.
Well, if my valve amps sound as you’ve described (and you’re right), then why shouldn't the valve and analogue equipment used in some recording studios possess the same sonic characteristics, and thus impart the same desirable effect onto the music recorded by musicians?
The point I’m making is that my experience tells me, unquestionably, that the best valve and analogue equipment is capable of more faithfully reproducing recordings of music than its digital counterpart, which is why people like me (and some musicians who want their music to sound as lifelike as possible) do what we do.
I agree there is nothing romantic about how your system sounds. Some of your recordings that may be a different matter. There may be some musicians who agree with you, a tiny minority though. All the big names record digitally even though they have the resources to do it any way they damn well please. Steely Dan/Becker-Fagen being a good example.
…and in my opinion, consequently create a rather smooth and ‘over-produced’ sound on their albums, which to my ears, is not an accurate representation of how their voices and instruments sound in their raw (untampered with) state, minus the ’studio effects’ superimposed on proceedings by the sound engineer.
Strangely enough I was taking to Snapper about this very thing only the other day, when he was down visiting, and demonstrated to him what I meant. He could hear exactly where I was coming from.
The sonic presentation on SD albums, IMO, has been fucked about with too much, in order to sound ‘slick’, and thus appeal to the audiophile brigade amongst their fan base, who expect such when playing the band’s albums, which is why Gaucho (and such like) is used as a ’test disc’ and played so often at hi-fi shows - usually on equipment which ‘likes’/gels with that type of ‘manufactured' sound.
If you like the raw, forensic, ‘direct-to-desk’ sound you claim (which ultimately is more realistic), then there are far better recordings around which demonstrate that effect than that on Steely Dan albums - and some of them use vintage analogue and valve devices in the recording chain ;) Again I will demonstrate this to you on your next visit.
The fact that only a tiny minority of musicians use the equipment I’ve mentioned to record their music has no bearing whatsoever on the efficacy of doing so. More people eat at Burger King than at Michelin starred restaurants, but that doesn’t mean the standard of cuisine there is better!
Marco.
Haselsh1
20-11-2014, 11:55
Have you guys heard the first release from Ondatropica...? All valve and all analogue. Give it a go on vinyl of course.
Hi Shaun,
Nope, but I’ll check it out. Does it do the biz, then? :)
Marco.
The point I’m making is that my experience tells me, unquestionably, that the best valve and analogue equipment is capable of more faithfully reproducing recordings of music than its digital counterpart, which is why people like me (and some musicians who want their music to sound as lifelike as possible) do what we do.
…and in my opinion, consequently create a rather smooth and ‘over-produced’ sound on their albums, which to my ears, is not an accurate representation of how their voices and instruments sound in their raw (untampered with) state, minus the ’studio effects’ superimposed on proceedings by the sound engineer. Strangely enough I was taking to Snapper about this very thing only the other day, when he was down visiting, and demonstrated to him what I meant. He could hear exactly where I was coming from.
The sonic presentation on SD albums, IMO, has been fucked about with too much, in order to sound ‘slick’, and thus appeal to the audiophile brigade amongst their fan base, who expect such when playing the band’s albums, which is why Gaucho (and such like) is played so often at hi-fi shows - and on equipment which ‘likes’/gels with that type of sonic signature.
If you like the raw, forensic, ‘direct-to-desk’ sound you claim (which ultimately is more realistic), then there are far better recordings around which demonstrate that effect than those of Steely Dan albums - and some of them use vintage analogue and valve devices in the recording chain ;) Again I will demonstrate this to you on your next visit.
The fact that only a tiny minority of musicians use the equipment I’ve mentioned to record their music has no bearing whatsoever on the efficacy of doing so. More people eat at Burger King than at Michelin starred restaurants, but that doesn’t mean the standard of cuisine there is better!
Marco.
Now this is really the crux of the issue. You are conflating 'lifelike and believable' with 'what the artist intended' and the two are not necessarily the same. Especially with a studio recording. Gaucho, for example sounds how it does because that is what they intended it to sound like (and the reasons for that are nothing to do with appealing to their audiophile fan base). We are trying to replay a recording, not recreate a live event, so if the artist intended it to sound 'slick' that is what we should be aiming to reproduce - what is on the recording, not some notional idea of real instruments and voices. A studio album like Gaucho is a construct that exists only on the disc, it has no real-life counterpoint that we can relate it to.
If you want a real-life counterpoint to test the efficacy of your recording methods let us say for example we went to a pub or club where there is a jazz trio playing, drums, piano and sax. Totally unamplified, no mics or anything. We record the performance using stereo mics and we record it digitally and we record it on analogue tape. From the analogue tape we cut a microgroove LP record and from the digital we master a red book CD. We play both back on your system. Now in that scenario we should just get the 'real' sound of the instruments. But which recording would sound closer to what we actually heard live? Which would sound closest to the real event? I say it will be the digital recording played back on CD. You say it will be the analogue recording played back on vinyl. That would be a true test ands probably the only test where I would be happy to change my opinion because I would be satisfied that we had reduced all the other considerations to a minimum.
Now this is really the crux of the issue. You are conflating 'lifelike and believable' with 'what the artist intended' and the two are not necessarily the same.
Lol - no I’m not. That’s merely how you’ve interpreted it. What I’m saying is that Gaucho, or indeed any other Steely Dan album, for that matter, is not the best choice of music to demonstrate how good a system is at replicating the sound of real instruments and voices.
Yes, the album has an intentionally ‘manufactured studio sound’, and so that’s how it should sound on your system, but if I were citing the best examples of why ‘all the big names’ choose to record digitally, I wouldn’t be using SD albums to demonstrate that point (as you appear to be doing), if realism/lifelike sound was the desired goal!
Do you see what I mean? :)
If you want a real-life counterpoint to test the efficacy of your recording methods let us say for example we went to a pub or club where there is a jazz trio playing, drums, piano and sax. Totally unamplified, no mics or anything. We record the performance using stereo mics and we record it digitally and we record it on analogue tape. From the analogue tape we cut a microgroove LP record and from the digital we master a red book CD. We play both back on your system. Now in that scenario we should just get the 'real' sound of the instruments. But which recording would sound closer to what we actually heard live? Which would sound closest to the real event? I say it will be the digital recording played back on CD. You say it will be the analogue recording played back on vinyl. That would be a true test ands probably the only test where I would be happy to change my opinion because I would be satisfied that we had reduced all the other considerations to a minimum.
I have no problem with that, and agree, so let’s see if we can do it sometime. I have some contacts in that area which might make it happen. In the meantime, find that bloody bought Sinatra CD of yours and carry out the comparison as discussed earlier, and report back, as that’s the best we’ve got to go with at the moment! ;)
Marco.
P.S I think you’ll find that SD were very aware that the sound they were creating on their albums would appeal to audiophiles ‘of a certain age', who formed a significant part of their fan base, and indeed still do. Aside from liking the music, that’s why so many of them use Gaucho as their favourite ‘test disc’….
Lol - no I’m not. That’s merely how you’ve interpreted it. What I’m saying is that Gaucho, or indeed any other Steely Dan album, for that matter, is not the best choice of music to demonstrate how good a system is at replicating the sound of real instruments and voices.
Yes, the album has an intentionally ‘manufactured studio sound’, and so that’s how it should sound on your system, but if I were citing the best examples of why ‘all the big names’ choose to record digitally, I wouldn’t be using SD albums to demonstrate that point (as you appear to be doing), if realism/lifelike sound was the desired goal!
Do you see what I mean? :)
.
Yes I do because I was making the same point ;)
The problem you have is that this applies to 95% of studio albums. In fact to every studio album that was not recorded 'live'. Really a topic for a separate thread since it seems to me that a lot of enthusiasts get confused as to how the recordings they are listening to was actually made, and consequently we get references to the benchmark of accuracy being 'live music' or 'the sound of real instruments' when it just isn't that straightforward with most recordings.
'Gaucho' is an analogue recording but then it was made in 1979. All Dan (and solo) output since then has been recorded digitally. They wouldn't have done that if they thought they could get more of what they wanted with analogue. I'm using the Dan as an example because they have massive recording and production experience and all the resources and money in the world to throw at their recordings.
There are quite a few recording professionals who hang about here occasionally. Stuart 'Lodgesound' come to mind. I wonder if they have ever done a recording comparison similar to what I suggested?
I will have a look now for my Sinatra CD. Not sure it will prove anything but will be interesting nonetheless.
Gordon Steadman
20-11-2014, 14:08
I'm not in any way technically minded enough to know the ins and outs of this. However, some of my favourite vinyl records have been digitally remastered. One in particular, I use for all my listening tests on equipment as I have it in both vinyl and CD formats. Good old Time Out by Dave Brubeck.
I prefer the vinyl by some margin. Maybe its not the way its recorded that matters a damn but the way its played back. CD players have yet to catch up with TTs perhaps. I can't help feeling that they are considered well enough developed though and it is unlikely that we will see any great advance in that direction. TTs and their associated electronics have been under development for rather longer.
My experience tends to put me in Marco's camp but in any case, I find the 'statements' about digital superiority to be a bit much. Its opinion that is as yet unproven. Digital is much easier surely - and cheaper to produce no doubt - I find that a more telling reason for it to be in general use.
Oldpinkman
20-11-2014, 14:30
Macca
Earlier we discussed the limitations of Red book. I believe Steely Dan and others master using 24 bit technology. There is a fairly significant difference. And like you say - they make that choice.
I'm not sure real music gets anywhere near the dynamic range limits of either system.
Haselsh1
20-11-2014, 14:43
Marco's camp
Is he...?
Forget analogue vs. digital. The nearest we can get is to the mastering engineer and what THEY wanted. Anything before this mastering session is irrelevant in the wider scheme of things...
Yes I do because I was making the same point ;)
Lol - you could’ve fooled me! :D
The problem you have is that this applies to 95% of studio albums.
Indeed, but not all of them have been fucked about with as much as some Steely Dan albums have.
In fact to every studio album that was not recorded 'live'. Really a topic for a separate thread since it seems to me that a lot of enthusiasts get confused as to how the recordings they are listening to was actually made, and consequently we get references to the benchmark of accuracy being 'live music' or 'the sound of real instruments' when it just isn't that straightforward with most recordings.
I just like things to sound as close as possible to what was on the CD or LP when it left the studio. However, the recordings I usually prefer listening to, and ones I use when assessing my system, in terms of ‘musical accuracy', are the ‘unprocessed’/stripped-back/raw (delete as you wish) variety, which have been subjected to the minimum amount of tampering.
'Gaucho' is an analogue recording but then it was made in 1979.
It was released in 1980.
All Dan (and solo) output since then has been recorded digitally. They wouldn't have done that if they thought they could get more of what they wanted with analogue.
So you presume, but there could’ve been a multitude of other factors, outside of issues relating to sound quality, responsible for that state of affairs. I suspect that convenience would've been one of them.
I will have a look now for my Sinatra CD. Not sure it will prove anything but will be interesting nonetheless.
Well, if both CDs sound sonically near-indistinguishable, which I suspect will be the case, then it doesn’t say much for the supposed superiority of today’s digital recording equipment, if it can’t improve on the 'obsolete old tat’ and music sources I’ve used! ;)
Marco.
Is he...?
Only on a Sunday.
Marco.
Macca
Earlier we discussed the limitations of Red book. I believe Steely Dan and others master using 24 bit technology. There is a fairly significant difference. And like you say - they make that choice.
I'm not sure real music gets anywhere near the dynamic range limits of either system.
Well they record with 24 bits, but the red book CD will be mastered to 16. With replay you are not gaining anything with the extra bits, the potential dynamic range available with red book is more than sufficient. If you listen to a CD of a recording pre mastering the peaks are so much higher in level than the quiet bits you will be forever adjusting volume up and down, assuming you don't destroy the loudspeakers first. These days they say they use too much dynamic compression but that is the fault of the target market not the medium. Personally I think LP has more than enough dynamic range for domestic use. Then again get someone to come and play the sax in your living room and you will get an idea of how powerful and robust the amps and loudspeakers need to be to reproduce an adequate facsimile of that experience in terms of the power and dynamics required of them.
I find Marco's idea that Steely Dan record digitally nowadays because it is more convenient quite amusing. But hey maybe it is true, I've not asked them.
Then again get someone to come and play the sax in your living room and you will get an idea of how powerful and robust the amps and loudspeakers need to be to reproduce an adequate facsimile of that experience in terms of the power and dynamics required of them.
Indeed, and you’ll certainly not get that when feeding them with a slickly smoothed-off sound of such, manufactured in a recording studio! :ner:
I find Marco's idea that Steely Dan record digitally nowadays because it is more convenient quite amusing. But hey maybe it is true, I've not asked them.
Lol… Well, why not? Seeking convenience, as opposed to striving for ultimate quality, is an attitude that has unfortunately permeated throughout the recording (and hi-fi) industry today, so no reason not to assume that even the 'mighty Dan’ haven’t succumbed to it! ;)
Marco.
Indeed, and you’ll not get that either with a slickly smoothed-off sound of such, manufactured in a recording studio! :ner:
.
Well you could if you wanted to. But a studio album is created to be a listening experience of itself, not as a facsimile of the band playing live. It is solely designed to be replayed on a hi-fi system, it has no other purpose. So you don't necessarily want that sax blasting out of the mix as though the player was stood there in the room. It has to be tailored to suit the overall intended sound of the album. I've heard a few systems that were tailored to give a 'live' sound to studio recordings. Those Avondale 'uber-Naim' amps we heard at NEBO4 are a good example. Hard and fast with lots of leading edge so it sounded like a band playing through a PA system at a gig. For me that is artificial, it is not an accurate rendition of the recording. But some folk will say it is accurate because 'it sounds like it does at a gig'.
Oldpinkman
20-11-2014, 17:59
Martin
I know where you're coming from. My son plays sax in the living room (badly). Fortunately I have friends who play it better in theirs (Saxman Mark Kirby). But a sax too loud for the room is just too loud for the room. That's nothing to do with dynamic range. If Red Books dynamic range were sufficient, why bother with 24 bit. Both are lossless when mixing.
One of the young drummers I know, who has just started a 3 year college course to be a sound engineer, was bending my ear about Pono the other day - and how we would at last be able to hear music at the quality of the studio recordings instead of the lesser "flat" CD's we get now. Maybe vinyl keeps more of the important information from studio masters, however much it loses some other stuff.
The only other explanation for why I , and Sue , consistently prefer vinyl to the free CD in the sleeve, must be that I'm not doing CD's right with my flaky old DaCapo. Maybe. But back in my PT days schlepping round dealers, and doing high-end shows, I got to hear a lot of CD equipment. I've tried some modern stuff in shops and not encountered anything close. I forget the Dac Sovereign uses but his system was so unfamiliar and different to mine I couldn't draw any useful conclusion. I'd need to hear it in my system to see whether it changes my basic take on red book. I hae me doots. (The flaky old Pink Triangle has to go through the same flaky old Pip as the DaCapo does, so, in the context of preferring my vinyl to my cd, the preamp is not in the equation)
When it comes to dynamic range, I suspect the greatest impact in domestic systems (again, based on my recent experiences) is the inability of power amps to cope with chosen listening levels without clipping.
As for Steely Dan, and Marco's theory, I bet most bands haven't sat down and made a conscious choice about whether to record digitally or with analogue. Most go with the trend - which is digital. It is considerably more difficult, especially now many of the key skills have been lost to record with analogue equipment, and in particular mixing is a whole new challenge (or old challenge really). I'll quote the Animal and Man sleeve notes again.
"This album is analogue recorded to 2 inch tape on a Studer A827 Gold edition... I am very proud of all the albums I have made so far, but I have to say that this is the one that I have been trying to make for many years. I feel that I have captured what I set out to as a songwriter. The band and I have always wanted a particular sound in the recordings, which is the genuine sound of a band playing music in a room. Sounds very obvious, but is hard to achieve unless you are lucky enough to work with someone like Mike Thorne.
When people talk of the vintage sound, it feels they are referring to a time before we had too many digitial options with music. A time when we recorded the sound of a performance in a room with its own natural reverb and ambience, not a digitally created environment. Through the purpose built rooms, vintage tape machines, acoustic piano, Hammond organ, and Leslie (formerly owned by Booker T), vintage snare drums...
... It's an amazing thing to have an engineer who feels more like a 6th member of the band.
Nostalgia - but not roses in the window stuff. They are a live band, and wanted their recording to sound like that. And Sovereign clearly felt they had succeeded :cool:
As for Steely Dan, and Marco's theory, I bet most bands haven't sat down and made a conscious choice about whether to record digitally or with analogue. Most go with the trend - which is digital.
Indeed, trends... I also meant to mention that to Martin. Like you say, in that respect, most bands just go with the flow.
Unfortunately when Macca visited I didn’t have time to introduce him to this: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?25073-The-Doors-new-LTD-edition-45rpm-vinyl-box-set-a-review
…which is another textbook example of just how superb (and very musically real) vinyl can sound, when such attention to detail is paid during the all-analogue mastering process by discerning professionals, keen to show what the format can really do!
Martin, I’ll play some of it to you next time you’re up, and I guarantee that your jaw will drop…..
Marco.
. If Red Books dynamic range were sufficient, why bother with 24 bit. Both are lossless when mixing
24 bit gives more dynamic range when recording, so it is easier not to hit the end stops which obviously you don't want to do with digital. That's all it does. It doesn't give you 'more detail' or any of that bollocks. As we have already agreed, I think, red book's dynamic range is way more than can be realistically used on playback.
When people talk of the vintage sound, it feels they are referring to a time before we had too many digitial options with music. A time when we recorded the sound of a performance in a room with its own natural reverb and ambience, not a digitally created environment. Through the purpose built rooms, vintage tape machines, acoustic piano, Hammond organ, and Leslie (formerly owned by Booker T), vintage snare drums...
He's talking here about using vintage equipment and recording instruments live in the room. Now you can do that with a digital recording just as well in fact technically it will be superior. The only reason you would record in analogue would be to make it sound more like an old recording - just because you can have a 'digitally created environment' doesn't mean you have to.
Now you can do that with a digital recording just as well in fact technically it will be superior.
Says who, and in what way will it be “technically superior”? You keep coming out with this stuff, as if you’ve been brainwashed by measurements! :rolleyes:
The only reason you would record in analogue would be to make it sound more like an old recording...
Bollocks! Now you’re just deliberately being annoying, unless you mean ‘like and old recording, which sounds better than almost any new recordings made today’ ;)
Neither the Frank Sinatra album I’ve sent you, The Doors box set I’ve just mentioned, or the album Richard is talking about, were produced on vinyl, from original master tapes via an all-analogue recording process, to create ‘an old sound’, in the sense that you mean it - far from it.
I suggest we leave it there now, as quite clearly, you have an entrenched position you’re simply unwilling to budge from, no matter how much the contrary, rather cogent, arguments presented here should’ve have made you consider re-evaluating your opinion.
Marco.
Oldpinkman
20-11-2014, 18:48
. If Red Books dynamic range were sufficient, why bother with 24 bit. Both are lossless when mixing
24 bit gives more dynamic range when recording, so it is easier not to hit the end stops which obviously you don't want to do with digital. That's all it does. It doesn't give you 'more detail' or any of that bollocks. As we have already agreed, I think, red book's dynamic range is way more than can be realistically used on playback.
Clearly Neil Young doesn't think so. (Pono). Chris, my 22 year old drummer wannabe recording engineer doesn't think so. My limited experience doesn't make me think so. Looks like one we need to do with some demo equipment and that famous beer. Red book sounds less good than vinyl or 24 bit to me. I wouldn't like to say definitively which technical parameter is responsible for that :)
Oldpinkman
20-11-2014, 18:55
He's talking here about using vintage equipment and recording instruments live in the room. Now you can do that with a digital recording just as well in fact technically it will be superior. The only reason you would record in analogue would be to make it sound more like an old recording - just because you can have a 'digitally created environment' doesn't mean you have to.
I drink with the guy. Joe - guitarist in the band teaches me guitar. I promise you that is NOT what he is saying. He is perhaps more referencing the fact that moving away from the digital world is the key - ie live sounds, live reverb - none of the gizmos and bells and whistles that can be used in digital mixing. And you could maybe use a 24 bit system to record all analogue stuff, with no digital effects. But he is not using analogue tape to make it sound like an old recording. Absolutely not. He's using analogue tape to make it sound like it did in the room. (Maybe digital - unfussed straight digital recording in 24 bit - could do that too).
:cool:
Says who, and in what way will it be “technically superior”? You keep coming out with this stuff, as if you’ve been brainwashed by measurements! :rolleyes:
Bollocks! Now you’re just deliberately being annoying.
Neither the Frank Sinatra album I’ve sent you, The Doors box set I’ve just mentioned, or the album Richard is talking about, were created on vinyl, from original master tapes via an all-analogue recording process, with the above goal in mind - far from it.
I suggest we leave it there now, as quite clearly, you have an entrenched position you’re simply unwilling to budge from, no matter how much the contrary arguments presented should’ve have made you consider re-evaluating your opinion.
Marco.
Well I thought it was an interesting discussion but obviously for you it is all about me eventually agreeing with you. That's a shame.
Sinatra and the Doors are old recordings. If I had a band and wanted to get a sound like The Doors had then we might well use a vintage reel to reel and an old valve desk to do that. There is no right or wrong here.
But he is not using analogue tape to make it sound like an old recording. Absolutely not. He's using analogue tape to make it sound like it did in the room.
Give up, dude, no matter how many times you tell him that, he still won’t accept it… If you guys do meet up, introduce Doubting Thomas here to Joe and let him hear it from the horse’s mouth - even then, he’ll still deny it happened and claim it was a dream! ;)
Marco.
P.S If you do go, Martin, be sure to take your measurement apparatus with you for ‘technical support’...
Well I thought it was an interesting discussion but obviously for you it is all about me eventually agreeing with you. That's a shame.
Not at all, but you keep on coming out with the same stuff, which I addressed earlier in the discussion, in order to continue making the same points, which shows you have an entrenched position that you’re unwilling to move from.
I think I’ll go with your earlier self-confessed statement of being ‘one of those strange people who just prefer digital’, and leave it at that, as quite simply, there’s no arguing with that ‘logic'.
Marco.
But he is not using analogue tape to make it sound like an old recording. Absolutely not. He's using analogue tape to make it sound like it did in the room. (Maybe digital - unfussed straight digital recording in 24 bit - could do that too).
:cool:
Okay I mis-understood. If he feels that the analogue tape recording sounds more real than the 24 bit digital then who am I to argue? If we all met up and had a listen to both I might well agree. The proof is always in the subjective pudding after all.
…which you also might discover if you ever find that other Sinatra CD.
Marco.
, but you keep on coming out with the same stuff, which I addressed earlier in the discussion, in order to continue making the same points, which shows you have an entrenched position.
.
I'm entrenched. You are the Maginot Line ;)
Fine let's pack it in then I've not got anymore to say anyway.
EDIT I can't find the damn Sinatra CD. I'll order a new one.
I'm entrenched. You are the Maginot Line ;)
Not at all - if I were the 'digital fanboy' here being presented with the evidence and cogent arguments for analogue/vinyl that you’ve been given in this discussion, I can promise you that I’d have conceded that fact and considered that my views on the matter *might* be wrong, or at least not entirely right, whereas you will stubbornly keep on going, defending your (largely untenable) opinion to infinity!
Now I know why you get on so well with a certain person we both know ;)
Fine let's pack it in then I've not got anymore to say anyway.
EDIT I can't find the damn Sinatra CD. I'll order a new one.
Cool. Let me know when that happens :)
Marco.
I don't know, if this is relevant.
But almost all vinyl has been processed in the digital domain.
This was done in the vinyl cutting lathe process. Neumann put digital delays on their lathes as early as 80's.
Vinyl pressing masters are cut on the lathe. It needs to know what is coming ahead to maximize the vinyl groove
density. This is now done by loading the audio file on a computer. This computer calculates the grooves and
runs the lathe.
Here is a quote from a leading vinyl factory in the Czech Republic:
"Our customers supply us with digital sources 99.9% of cases so we have to adapt to their wishes and requests. Max. 10 analogue tapes have been processed last year compared to more than 12000 copper plates cut here from our new digital mastering system. "
This process can be done "all analogue" on a special tape system with two heads. Ok, someone is still doing it.
But I just cant believe that any re-issue is allowed to mess with the original master tapes.
They just play them once and copy to digital and take it from there.
I mean they cannot copy the analogue masters to another tape because you loose resolution on an analogue copy.
I don't know, if this is relevant.
But almost all vinyl has been processed in the digital domain.
This was done in the vinyl cutting lathe process. Neumann put digital delays on their lathes as early as 80's.
Hi Juha,
The recordings I’m referring to here (Sinatra ‘Live at the Sands’ and The Doors box set, containing all their studio albums) are both from the 60s, so totally analogue in every way, when produced on a vinyl format.
The Sinatra album I ripped for Macca, onto a CDR, using an EMU soundcard and various bits of noise reduction software, are the only time the recording has been subjected to any digital sound processes :)
Marco.
Live at the Sands is 1966
I think the point Juha is making is that if the Lp was made after 1980 it probably cut with a digital lathe.
Stratmangler
20-11-2014, 21:24
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug06/articles/fagen.htm
Isn't this thread like comparing Huddersfield Town FC (digital) to Real Madrid (vinyl) they both do the same thing but one does it with so much class and style it embarrasses the other? :)
Live at the Sands is 1966
Yup, I was thinking about most of the other Sinatra albums I have, which are late 50s vintage. It’s still pre-digital, though.
I think the point Juha is making is that if the Lp was made after 1980 it probably cut with a digital lathe.
Absolutely, but there’s still plenty of music around, on vinyl, made way before that date :)
Marco.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug06/articles/fagen.htm
Interesting… Now, I have Morph the Cat on CD, and music aside, to my ears, it’s a much better sounding recording than Gaucho or Aja was, on vinyl.
Marco.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug06/articles/fagen.htm
Morph the Cat has very good sound.
It is a typical story. They recorded drums in a big studio on analog tape but:
"But frankly I don't hear that much of a difference between the two media. As long as bass and drums are recorded to analogue you're OK. So we recorded the basic tracks to analogue, and for convenience's sake we loaded them into Pro Tools for overdubbing. To use analogue for overdubbing is just too much of a pain in the ass."
So rest of it was digital. You can run Pro Tools on any Mac/PC laptop these days.
This is an interesting bit from your link, Chris:
Although Steely Dan wore their love of studio technology on their sleeves, it seems that this was driven more by Walter Becker and engineer Roger Nichols than by Fagen. "Roger and Walter were always more interested in technology and in what the latest thing was," explains Fagen. "Walter's father was a hi-fi nut in the late '50s and '60s, and Walter is a science prodigy who went to Stuyvesant High School in New York, a specialist school for kids who are really good at science. I also got into high fidelity and I like good sounds, but I was never as much into the technical side of things.”
The part in bold likely explains why the band adopted digital recording processes (following the latest technological trends), rather than necessarily believing that the results produced were superior to what analogue had to offer.
Indeed, in terms of the latter, from what the article says, you can see that Fagan himself is a big analogue fan, for precisely the same reasons as I am, so perhaps Martin will have the grace to admit he was wrong there? ;)
The article also supports what I wrote earlier about the band appealing to the sensibilities of audiophiles.
Marco.
Hi Juha,
The recordings I’m referring to here (Sinatra ‘Live at the Sands’ and The Doors box set, containing all their studio albums) are from the 50s and 60s respectively, so totally analogue in every way, when produced on a vinyl format.
The Sinatra album I ripped for Macca, onto a CDR, using an EMU soundcard and various bits of noise reduction software, which was the only time the recording has been subjected to any digital sound processes :)
Marco.
I think Juha is right. And your example is one of the advantages of digital. In order to get the best of your transfer to CD you rip it to 24 bit 192 khz (or higher even) or maybe 24bit 176.4 khz which is a multiple of 44.1 and then do all your processing. Tics and pops, some noise can be removed, maybe increase or decrease the dynamic range, get rid of annoying applause etc. Only when that is done you downsample to 44.1 and do the rip. As I understand it it is much easier - read cheaper - to do the processing work in the digital domain. The other advantage of CD is that it is easier to burn the discs rather than press vinyl.
(Incidentally when you burn the CD; have nothing else running on the PC, do it at its slowest speed and use Verbatim discs.)
Hi Andrei,
In terms of the latter, I always do that, but thanks for the tip! :)
The advantages of digital, are in its ease of manipulation and convenience. Sound quality-wise, analogue at its best produces the superior sonic results, which is precisely why I can make a CDR of a Sinatra recording, derived from 1960s master tapes, on my T/T, that competes with or outperforms the sound quality on a commercially (all-digitally) produced CD today of the same album.
Furthermore, if Fagen & Co recognise the sonic advantages of an analogue recording process, and are adopting that when producing their current albums, how many other big-name artists today are doing the same thing?
I suspect that David Gilmour could be one of them, and also Kate Bush...
Marco.
Yup, David Gilmour used, I quote: “a lovely Neve analogue mixing console” (along with Pro Tools) to produce ‘On an Island’...http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jul06/articles/andyjackson.htm
Mixing old and new technologies is good thing to do (I adopt that approach in my own system) and shows that the best vintage analogue recording gear is considered by respected professionals as something special :)
Marco.
337alant
20-11-2014, 22:40
I don't think you should make direct comparisons between a CD and a LP as they are not necessarily mastered in the same way and in some cases one will be better than the other and Vice Versa so for me it futile trying to say one is better than the other.
In my system I use Vinyl, Reel 2 Reel and digital FLAC PC for play back They all sound very good IMO and I love and enjoy them all.
All have strength's and weaknesses dependant on the that actual recording so I don't get bent up trying to say Vinyl is better as it isn't in every case IMO and surface noise can be a pain when making recordings which is why I mostly use Digital for R2R recordings.
Best
Alan
Hi Andrei,
The advantages of digital, are in its ease of manipulation and convenience. Sound quality-wise, analogue at its best produces the superior sonic results, which is precisely why I can make a CDR of a Sinatra recording, derived from 1960s master tapes, on my T/T, that competes with or outperforms the sound quality on a commercially (all-digitally) produced CD today of the same album.
Marco.
This doesn't surprise me at all. Vinyl rips are big on usenet eg alt.binaries.whitburn.lossless. They go all out ripping 45s as well as LPs. The rips are usually posted as flac at 24-96 or 24-192 and are very good.
I don't think you should make direct comparisons between a CD and a LP as they are not necessarily mastered in the same way and in some cases one will be better than the other and Vice Versa so for me it futile trying to say one is better than the other.
In my system I use Vinyl, Reel 2 Reel and digital FLAC PC for play back They all sound very good IMO and I love and enjoy them all.
All have strength's and weaknesses dependant on the that actual recording so I don't get bent up trying to say Vinyl is better as it isn't in every case IMO and surface noise can be a pain when making recordings which is why I mostly use Digital for R2R recordings.
I totally agree, Alan, and as Macca knows (because he’s heard my system), I enjoy vinyl and CD equally, and both sound superb, although ultimately I prefer listening to vinyl, as to my ears it’s just that bit more musically convincing than CD (at its best).
The point I was making was that there are sonically advantageous reasons today for musicians to use analogue recording equipment (and valves), when producing their albums, and that digital isn’t the ‘be all and end all’ that some may think :)
Marco.
Werner Berghofer
21-11-2014, 06:45
Marco,
Sound quality-wise, analogue at its best produces the superior sonic results […]
but only in your opinion. I’m sure you are aware that audio perception is a very subjective and highly individual process, and no two humans on the planet hear in exactly identical ways.
Werner.
Oldpinkman
21-11-2014, 07:19
Macca
Given Steely Dan prefer analogue it transpires (yes I realise that is heavy poetic licence), does that mean that instead of me not doing digital properly you are not doing analogue properly? An unmodified SL1200 would be consistent with that conclusion in my experience ;)
I guess it just proves the frustration for me of forums, that with so many variables, so many legitimate different listening environments, listening tastes, expectations, and experiences, it is hard to be sure whether there is a sufficiently shared experience to draw any useful conclusions.
Still, nice to banter...:cool:
Hi Werner,
Marco,
but only in your opinion. I’m sure you are aware that audio perception is a very subjective and highly individual process, and no two humans on the planet hear in exactly identical ways.
Of course it’s only in my opinion. Everything I write here is only my opinion, even if I don’t always write ‘IMO’ to confirm it, which can look a little clumsy, scattered after every sentence :)
A few others, some professional well-known musicians amongst them, also seem to agree with my views on analogue.
Marco.
Macca
Given Steely Dan prefer analogue it transpires (yes I realise that is heavy poetic licence), does that mean that instead of me not doing digital properly you are not doing analogue properly? An unmodified SL1200 would be consistent with that conclusion in my experience ;):
You are making the mistake of asuming my current TT is the only one I have ever owned or heard. It isn't. It does represent what I consider to be an acceptable standard of vinyl replay. I'm not interested in spending thousands to eke out that last 10 percent. if I had that kind of money to blow on hi-fi it would go on loudspeakers.
Indeed, in terms of the latter, from what the article says, you can see that Fagan himself is a big analogue fan, for precisely the same reasons as I am, so perhaps Martin will have the grace to admit he was wrong there?
Ahem, Mr Macca! ;)
Your earlier argument was that SD (because they were famous and had so much money) could choose any equipment they liked to produce their albums, and if they'd thought analogue gear was better, they’d have used that. Well, it seems that DF has done precisely that on his albums - and for reasons of achieving high SQ, not to create ‘an old sound’.
Care to concede that you were wrong, mate?
Marco.
I seem to recall you closed down the debate yesterday evening. Do you now want to re-open it?
Nope, I’d just like you to admit that you were wrong in the respect I’ve outlined, since you were so adamant yesterday that I was, and kept going on about analogue only being good for creating an ‘old sound’, when that is patently not the case.
I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong, and so respect others who do the same :)
Marco.
Essentially, this is what I’d appreciate you retracting:
The only reason you would record in analogue would be to make it sound more like an old recording…
…as I don’t think Donald Fagan quite had that in mind when he recorded ‘Morph the Cat’ ;)
Marco.
Haselsh1
21-11-2014, 10:29
The Ondatropica album I briefly mentioned is now about two years old so is bang up to date but was recorded in Colombia by Will Holland and his latest project. It was recorded entirely with the use of vintage gear that Will moved out to his new home and is entirely analogue if you buy the vinyl copy. For any who may be interested, Will Holland goes under the name of Quantic and the Quantic Soul Orchestra, however his latest project is Ondatropica.
Haselsh1
21-11-2014, 10:31
Take a follow of this :
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ondatropica-VINYL/dp/B0080PVLLY/ref=sr_1_4?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1416565843&sr=1-4&keywords=ondatropica
My vote is to that side, that it is not a debate analog vs digital.
1)It is mainly depending mastering guys. This topic has been talked a lot at gearslutz forum where generally mastering proffesionals exist.
Due to market requierments (what those mastering people believe) they play with dynamic range of the recording, when they print CD's. Many times we say that the sax do not sound like that or this performance is not similar like at the concert, vocal is too big etc.
for example taking an instrument with -10db and -4db vocal at the same level, unfortunately by this way you play with the ambiance. Generaly when I want to buy a CD, first I check at http://dr.loudness-war.info
One sample;
recording is the same, same companies issued but at different years, by different mastering guy.
Michael Jackson "Off the Wall"
1982 http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/73135
2001 http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/67239
2) Actually we all shall not have the same experience even within analog setup. Because starting from TT till the end Speaker we all have different systems and different rooms. Even within the same system comparing a CD with a Vinil is actually comparing a CD player with TT (+cartridge) in my opinion.
Cheers, Shaun. Sounds interesting, so I’ll order that!
I think if you dug around more, you’d find all sorts of different artists today using analogue recording equipment, with the goal of achieving the most lifelike sound :)
Marco.
My vote is to that side, that it is not a debate analog vs digital.
1)It is mainly depending mastering guys. This topic has been talked a lot at gearslutz forum where generally mastering proffesionals exist.
Due to market requierments (what those mastering people believe) they play with dynamic range of the recording, when they print CD's. Many times we say that the sax do not sound like that or this performance is not similar like at the concert, vocal is too big etc.
for example taking an instrument with -10db and -4db vocal at the same level, unfortunately by this way you play with the ambiance. Generaly when I want to buy a CD, first I check at http://dr.loudness-war.info
One sample;
recording is the same, same companies issued but at different years, by different mastering guy.
Michael Jackson "Off the Wall"
1982 http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/73135
2001 http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/67239
2) Actually we all shall not have the same experience even within analog setup. Because starting from TT till the end Speaker we all have different systems and different rooms. Even within the same system comparing a CD with a Vinil is actually comparing a CD player with TT (+cartridge) in my opinion.
Interesting stuff, Yetkin, so thanks for sharing.
That’s what annoys me about the mainstream recording industry today - mostly it’s not about achieving the highest standards of audio quality, which it should be, but about other nonsense of more commercial interest, and this is evident by previously recorded albums being mastered now with a far lower dynamic range than they once had! :rolleyes:
The good thing, however, is that new recordings on vinyl tend not to be as affected in that way, which is as good a reason as any now to buy the vinyl version of a specific album, than the CD :)
Marco.
Essentially, this is what I’d appreciate you retracting:
…as I don’t think Donald Fagan quite had that in mind when he recorded ‘Morph the Cat’ ;)
Marco.
Fair enough I should have said the only reason you would record in analogue would be to get a 'particular' sound. 'Old' in that context does sound a bit prejudiced. Do bear in mind though that the vast majority of that record is recorded and produced digitally, it is very, very far from an all-analogue recording of the sort that you are championing.
Stratmangler
21-11-2014, 12:39
To chuck a bit of coal on the smouldering embers, I did find some info on the Nightfly, but I'm damned if I can't find the pages concerned!
It seems that right at the start of the project they ran digital and analogue equipment side by side, recording simultaneously on both, and the digital apparently slayed the analogue.
They had the analogue machine cleaned and realigned, and still the digital gave the most convincing recording of the live band in the room.
Then they played both masters in the production mastering room on different machines to the ones used for recording, and yet again the digital stuff won out, which is why The Nightfly ended up being recorded on a digital tape machine.
For the anoraks out there (I consider myself to be in this category) the digital machine was 16bit/50kHz sample rate.
The Nightfly proved that it ain't what you got, it's the way that you use it that counts.
The Nightfly proved that it ain't what you got, it's the way that you use it that counts.
No question about that. The problem really is that most enthusiasts don't really want to engage with the whole process of how their records were recorded and produced. They are just not interested and don't see it as relevant to enjoying their tunes. Which is fair enough because it isn't. I think quite afew would be surprised if they went to a studio and watched an album being recorded. It's not: 'Tape running; one, chew, free, four' any more and hasn't been for decades.
Fair enough I should have said the only reason you would record in analogue would be to get a 'particular' sound. ‘Old' in that contexr does sound a bit prejudiced.
Thank you for that, and in the case of the artists concerned, ‘particular sound’ meaning ‘as real/lifelike as possible’; i.e. the intention is to achieve maximum fidelity, not create some form of false sonic effect.
Do bear in mind though that the vast majority of that record is recorded and produced digitally, it is very, very far from an all-analogue recording of the sort that you are championing.
Yes, I know. However, the point is that DF wouldn’t have used ANY analogue equipment to record the album in the first place, if he didn’t think the results would've been better than those he would’ve achieved with digital stuff :)
Marco.
Haselsh1
21-11-2014, 13:10
No question about that. The problem really is that most enthusiasts don't really want to engage with the whole process of how their records were recorded and produced. They are just not interested and don't see it as relevant to enjoying their tunes. Which is fair enough because it isn't. I think quite afew would be surprised if they went to a studio and watched an album being recorded. It's not: 'Tape running; one, chew, free, four' any more and hasn't been for decades.
No, it appears that these days it is everything done in Protools and quantized to death to give the falsest possible approach to the original sound.
The problem really is that most enthusiasts don't really want to engage with the whole process of how their records were recorded and produced. They are just not interested and don't see it as relevant to enjoying their tunes. Which is fair enough because it isn't. I think quite afew would be surprised if they went to a studio and watched an album being recorded. It's not: 'Tape running; one, chew, free, four' any more and hasn't been for decades.
Indeed, but there are some of us who care deeply about how our favourite music has been recorded and produced, and thus seek the highest fidelity wherever possible, hence why we are members of a specialist audio forum, such as this.
For some reason, you seem to have a rather disparaging view of analogue recording equipment, for no logical reason, and are dismissive about the significance of the most important part of the recorded music reproduction chain: the quality of the information contained in the grooves of records or what is encoded onto CDs. Quite simply, if that isn’t the best it possibly can be, then no hi-fi system can improve it, so as a hi-fi enthusiast and music lover, it seems somewhat counter-productive not to engage with that process :scratch:
Clearly some musicians feel that analogue has something special and worthwhile to offer, which is why they insist on using the best vintage analogue equipment available, when recording their music, as they believe it to be sonically superior to its digital counterpart.
Chris, will tell you the importance, for example, of reading what’s written on the ‘dead wax’ of vinyl records, in order to ascertain which are the best pressings of a particular album. Wanna tell Martin your story about what Snapper taught you in that respect, mate? ;)
For example, a ‘Porky Prime Cut’ of Gaucho, on vinyl, sounds far and away superior to a standard cut, so much so that once you hear the former, you’d almost chuck the latter in the bin!!
Marco.
Stratmangler
21-11-2014, 13:16
I think quite afew would be surprised if they went to a studio and watched an album being recorded. It's not: 'Tape running; one, chew, free, four' any more and hasn't been for decades.
Sad fact, but true.
Did you ever see the documentary on the rerecording of Sgt. Pepper?
That was an eye opener :)
b-tMEFLgxso
Stratmangler
21-11-2014, 13:31
Indeed, but some of us care deeply about how our favourite music has been recorded and seek the highest fidelity wherever possible, hence why we are members of a specialist audio forum, such as this. For some reason, you seem to have a rather disparaging view of analogue recording equipment, for no logical reason.
Clearly some musicians feel that analogue has something special and worthwhile to offer, which is why they insist on using the best vintage analogue equipment available, when recording their music, as they believe it to be sonically superior to its digital counterpart.
Chris, will tell you the importance, for example, of reading what’s written on the ‘dead wax’ of vinyl records, in order to ascertain which are the best pressings of a particular album. Wanna tell Martin your story about what Snapper taught you in that respect, mate? ;)
For example, a ‘Porky Prime Cut’ of Gaucho, on vinyl, sounds far and away superior to a standard cut, so much so that once you hear the former, you’d almost chuck the latter in the bin!!
Marco.
I had a very interesting conversation with David, and was pleased to find that my old copy of "Who Do We Think We Are" by Deep Purple has the mark of Porky upon it.
It always sounded superior to other copies that friends have, and now I know why.
Porky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Peckham) happens to be a very accomplished record cutting engineer, and records pressed from his laqcuers are extremely well regarded because of the extremely high quality of his work.
http://www.discogs.com/artist/380591-George-Peckham
Indeed, so you’d agree that it’s rather worthwhile paying attention to that sort of stuff? :)
Marco.
Stratmangler
21-11-2014, 13:57
Indeed, so you’d agree that it’s rather worthwhile paying attention to that sort of stuff? :)
Marco.
Yup!!
I keep an eye out for certain mastering engineers work on recent reissues - Bernie Grundman has a very good reputation.
My copy of Morph The Cat had the cutting work done by Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman, and very fine it sounds too.
Going back, I believe the Bob Ludwig cut of Led Zeppelin II is the one to have, and it commands a high price.
Yup!!
I keep an eye out for certain mastering engineers work on recent reissues - Bernie Grundman has a very good reputation.
My copy of Morph The Cat had the cutting work done by Kevin Gray and Steve Hoffman, and very fine it sounds too.
Going back, I believe the Bob Ludwig cut of Led Zeppelin II is the one to have, and it commands a high price.
Chris Belman also worth looking out for. Think he works with Bernie Grundman - all his stuff is superb!
One advantage of CD then: you don't have to worry about pressing quality, just the DR rating...
Stratmangler
21-11-2014, 16:50
One advantage of CD then: you don't have to worry about pressing quality, just the DR rating...
You're much more likely to have the content "improved" for maximum loudness on a CD.
If they tried the same with vinyl the records would be unplayable.
The DR thing is a red herring - it's no indication of quality for certain!
If you hadn't realised by now I'm sat on the fence on this mass debate ;)
For some reason, you seem to have a rather disparaging view of analogue recording equipment, for no logical reason, and are dismissive about the significance of the most important part of the recorded music reproduction chain: the quality of the information contained in the grooves of records or what is encoded onto CDs. .
Nope! Wrong and wrong. You use the most appropriate tool for the job. But I think you are confusing that with using the tool that gives the most realistic result and that is not what 99% or artists are aiming for. They are looking for a sound that is right for them. Whether that is a hyper-real sound or very proccessed and sounding nothing like real instruments in the room is irrelevant.
Also bear in mind that a lot of musicians could care less about the production. they play their bit and then they go home. They don't sit there in the control room with the engineer saying eq this or put a bit more gate on the drums. They trust the engineer and producer to do their jobs.
You say you use strightforward live recordings of real instrumemts in real rooms to assess your system. That is a good idea if you want to see how natural and realistic your system sounds. BUT 99% of albums are not made that way, that is the point I am trying to get across.
Nope! Wrong and wrong. You use the most appropriate tool for the job. But I think you are confusing that with using the tool that gives the most realistic result and that is not what 99% or artists are aiming for.
Martin, what are you on about? You’ve completely got the wrong end of the stick! :doh:
What I’m saying (in the bit you’ve just quoted), is that for a hi-fi enthusiast, not a musician, the most important part of the recorded music reproduction chain is how good the ‘software’/source music sounds, CD or LP, as if that sounds crap, then one’s 'fancy hi-fi system’ isn’t going to make it sound any better!!
Therefore, in that respect, caring about pressing and production quality is paramount, which given your earlier comments, you appear not to be too concerned about, as you don’t see a need to engage with the process. However, as Chris has outlined, it can be rather advantageous to do so!
Are we on the same page now? Hopefully…..
Marco.
The problem really is that most enthusiasts don't really want to engage with the whole process of how their records were recorded and produced. They are just not interested and don't see it as relevant to enjoying their tunes…
Hopefully, you can understand now the significant advantages, both as a music lover and audio enthusiast, of 'engaging with whole process of how records were produced and recorded’, as outlined by Chris.
TBH, I’m rather shocked at how dismissive you were of such an important factor in allowing you to hear your favourite music at its best.
Marco.
How records are made and produced?
Here is the minimum reading list:
1. First you read Lewisohn: Beatles Recording Sessions
Why? Because you know all the songs so well. It is easy to relate to this.
2. Go to http://www.soundonsound.com/
The Articles / All Issues. Open an issue and look for "Classic Tracks". Read about 40-50 stories.
3. Go to https://www.gearslutz.com/board/
Read some of that to get info on what is going on right now.
Gordon Steadman
21-11-2014, 19:19
i can't see how know about the technicalities or personalities involved with the production of a recording can have any effect on my enjoyment.
I really don't give a toss how it got there, I just enjoy what is there or not. If the music is good then I get lost in that and the processes are irrelevant - for me I have to say of course.
It just seems like the ultimate of nerdness to want to know the ins and outs. If the recording is good I keep it, if its not, I chuck it out. Who is on the label as producer, recording technician etc make absolutely no difference to my enjoyment. I acknowledge their importance of course.
I think, as you say, that this is another example of there being two distinct hobbies here. Hi-Fi as a worship of the equipment and its associated practices on the one hand ...and music on the other.
I appreciate that its possible to have a foot in both camps but my foot in the hi-fi camp doesn't go very deep into the mud.
I've been talking to the woman who bought my Teufel speakers. She is fabulously wealthy and could afford to buy any equipment she wanted. She has a Thorens TT, Marantz CDP, Arcam amp and B&W speakers. The following is part of her latest email.
Yes you are absolutely right. I care more for the music and apart from attending a real concert, cant probably tell the difference between high range hifi and medium type equipment, principally because listening to recorded music hasnt really replaced the concert for me, in my heart. Serge (her husband - now deceased) had an italian colleague/friend who was so mad on hifi that he had a special room built in his house, with the most expensive equipment in it, but I was always suspicious of what he liked to listen to, whether it was music or just "perfect" sound. When he was in Luxembourg he always criticised me, saying I could afford better amplifiers etc, but was satisfied with what I had - but I never gave in!
She listens almost exclusively to the TT and only used the CD for background music - just to get on topic. She is a classical violinist with perfect pitch.
Ali Tait
21-11-2014, 19:25
I think any outsider reading most of the output of this forum would call us ultimate nerds! :lol:
i can't see how know about the technicalities or personalities involved with the production of a recording can have any effect on my enjoyment.
I really don't give a toss how it got there, I just enjoy what is there or not. If the music is good then I get lost in that and the processes are irrelevant - for me I have to say of course.
The point is, Gordon, it’s handy to know what the best pressings are of a particular album, so you can hear your favourite music at its best! What’s not to like? :scratch:
If you’re in a record shop and, to use Steely Dan as an example, and you see two copies of Gaucho for sale, and because you’ve done a wee bit of research, you check the dead wax and note that on one it says ‘Porky Prime Cut’, and on the other it’s blank, then (depending on condition) you buy the former safe in the knowledge that you’ve got the best pressing, and with it, the best recording (SQ) of that album.
Honestly, I can tell you from experience the difference in sound quality can be vast, from one pressing to another, so it’s a sonic upgrade right at the very source of the playback chain that you wouldn’t have gotten any other way! In terms of sonic gains, it beats fannying about with cables, and other aspects of your system’s performance, that’s for sure!! ;)
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
21-11-2014, 19:49
The point is, Gordon, it’s handy to know what the best pressings are of a particular album, so you can hear your favourite music at its best! What’s not to like? :scratch:
If you’re in a record shop and, to use Steely Dan as an example, and you see two copies of Gaucho for sale, and because you’ve done a wee bit of research, you check the dead wax and note that on one it says ‘Porky Prime Cut’, and on the other it’s blank, then (depending on condition) you buy the former safe in the knowledge that you’ve got the best pressing, and with it, the best recording (SQ) of that album.
Honestly, I can tell you from experience the difference in sound quality can be vast, from one pressing to another, so it’s a sonic upgrade right at the very source of the playback chain that you wouldn’t have gotten any other way! In terms of sonic gains, it beats fannying about with cables, and other aspects of your system’s performance, that’s for sure!! ;)
Marco.
Yup....Ali was right:lol:
Lol! :D
However, for me it’s all about being discerning and also passionate about something - nothing wrong with that in my book. You want to see how ‘anal’ I am about food, wine and car engine performance tweaking!! ;)
Marco.
Gordon Steadman
21-11-2014, 20:37
Lol! :D
However, for me it’s all about being discerning and passionate about something - nothing wrong with that in my book. You want to see how ‘anal’ I am about food, wine and car engine performance tweaking!! ;)
Marco.
I can hardly criticise a bit of 'involvement' I once sent back thirteen bits of pine before I got the bit of wood I wanted for a guitar front. The supplier couldn't see anything wrong with them but he wasn't listening to the wood before it was cut up. As always, there is much more to stuff than the uninitiated realise.
I know which bit of the tree wood comes from, how it was cut and what number of growth rings are going to be best for a particular shape. That's before listening to the response of the unfinished timber.
The user doesn't give a toss however - he/she just wants it to sound good and play well - which they won't discover until they actually play the thing.
Ali Tait
21-11-2014, 20:39
Well said.
Precisely. Caring about the quality of stuff is good! If more folk had that sort of mindset, in all levels of life, the world wouldn’t be in the state that it is!! :exactly:
Personally, I abhor how things I value have been ‘dumbed down’, from what they once were, to the lowest common denominator, and those who cause that state of affairs. I despise everything about today’s convenience and ‘disposable society’.
Marco.
My vote is to that side, that it is not a debate analog vs digital.
1)It is mainly depending mastering guys. This topic has been talked a lot at gearslutz forum where generally mastering proffesionals exist.
Due to market requierments (what those mastering people believe) they play with dynamic range of the recording, when they print CD's. Many times we say that the sax do not sound like that or this performance is not similar like at the concert, vocal is too big etc.
for example taking an instrument with -10db and -4db vocal at the same level, unfortunately by this way you play with the ambiance. Generaly when I want to buy a CD, first I check at http://dr.loudness-war.info
Good points. The final format is but one of many variables. And thank you very much for that dr.loudness-war reference: it is bookmarked!
You're much more likely to have the content "improved" for maximum loudness on a CD.
If they tried the same with vinyl the records would be unplayable.
The DR thing is a red herring - it's no indication of quality for certain!
If you hadn't realised by now I'm sat on the fence on this mass debate ;)
LOL - I've never been one for fence sitting. I'd rather state my opinion and if someone comes up with a good counter argument, or better still a practical demonstration, then I'll change my opinion. But I'll always have an opinion.
Re DR rating and quality I agree not the same thing. Zeppelin 'Mothership' is a good example. Dynamically compressed but you can still get beyond that and hear how good a remastering it is otherwise.
I used to be a big on the idea that the quality of the recording made the most difference and if you look back through old posts I've probably said that more than once. I changed my opinion on that. Leaving dynamic compression out of it for the moment there are 3 basic types of recording:
1) superb
2) perfectly adequate
3) poor
There are very few if any poor recordings, at least on major labels or affiliates. People often bring up Oasis as an example of poor recording/production without realising that is how the band wanted it to sound.
There is a big audiophile trap of playing only those recordings that flatter the system. I am sure most of us are familiar with this. You play recording A, wow, sounds tremendous, system really on song. You play recording B, oh no that doesn't sound good at all, it must be a shit recording. No! The likelihood is that if your system is not making sense of the recording then that is a problem with your system.
Note this has nothing to do with different LP pressings/releases of the same album on vinyl - like Marco's example of the Porky's Gaucho. That is a different thing altogether and I agree it is worth seeking out the best LP pressing of an album since that can make a significant difference.
Haselsh1
22-11-2014, 10:47
You know, having a passion for something drives you forward in life and gives you a unique incite into things. I shoot 6X7 cm negatives because ultimately it gives results that are endlessly better than digital and it is something I am totally passionate about. I listen to vinyl because it gives a result that is far more acceptable than digital and it is something else I am passionate about. I think that the World is getting to the stage whereby it only does things out of convenience and me personally; I am simply not interested in convenience. I do not do what I do because it is convenient but because it challenges me. Using film and various different developers challenges me, thank God and it keeps me on my toes mentally which just has to be a good thing. Long live analogue because the World and I are analogue.
Stratmangler
22-11-2014, 10:57
The only fence I'm sat on is the digital/analogue argument fence.
As an argument it's a waste of time.
I have stuff on CD that ranges from poor sounding to superb sounding, and the same goes for LP.
Some it is all digital, and some of it is all analogue, and a fair bit now is a mix of the two.
I suppose that of the two playback methods I use I slightly prefer the TT, but the digital side of things gets more day to day use.
To associate my slight preference for my TT being due to it sounding more cuddly than the digital side is completely incorrect - my TT does not sound cuddly and nice.
It accurately represents what it picks up from either groove on a record.
My digital side does not sound cold and hard either.
Overall the best description you could give my setup is that it's neutral, and I think it does a good job either way.
I do not ascribe to the point of view that some equipment is good for certain genres - if it's good equipment it makes a good job playing back all genres of music, and if it can't cope then it's broken!
The one thing I am very fully aware of is the audiophile (audiophool?) trap of tending to play musical material that makes the playback system sound nice, and I have never, ever done that.
Yes I have records that can make a tin can system sound really good, but that's the strength of the material and the recording coming to the fore.
It's a shame the Oasis boys wanted certain of their recordings to sound so poor, 'cos there's some decent content in some of the songs. I am very fully aware that they wanted the material to sound that way, so that's their choice, poor as it is :mental:
Stratmangler
22-11-2014, 11:11
Onto the deadwax scribblings ....
Doing a bit of digging around, I found out a little bit more about Gaucho.
Over in the USA the first cuts were done by Bob Ludwig at Masterdisk.
It was common practise for LPs to be cut and pressed in the territory they were aimed at, so something aimed at the UK/European market would be cut and pressed on this side of the pond.
My copy of Gaucho has references to Bilbo (http://www.discogs.com/Steely-Dan-Gaucho/release/1546303), so considering that the record was released in November of 1980 it looks like I have a UK first press copy of the record.
There's a lot of information in that deadwax - it pays to pay attention to it when you're buying SH vinyl.
kininigin
22-11-2014, 11:56
The Ondatropica album I briefly mentioned is now about two years old so is bang up to date but was recorded in Colombia by Will Holland and his latest project. It was recorded entirely with the use of vintage gear that Will moved out to his new home and is entirely analogue if you buy the vinyl copy. For any who may be interested, Will Holland goes under the name of Quantic and the Quantic Soul Orchestra, however his latest project is Ondatropica.
I love Quantic,have loads of his music! It's always well recorded.Not heard the Ondatropica album so will check that one out....on vinyl of course.
The point is, Gordon, it’s handy to know what the best pressings are of a particular album, so you can hear your favourite music at its best! What’s not to like? :scratch:
If you’re in a record shop and, to use Steely Dan as an example, and you see two copies of Gaucho for sale, and because you’ve done a wee bit of research, you check the dead wax and note that on one it says ‘Porky Prime Cut’, and on the other it’s blank, then (depending on condition) you buy the former safe in the knowledge that you’ve got the best pressing, and with it, the best recording (SQ) of that album.
Honestly, I can tell you from experience the difference in sound quality can be vast, from one pressing to another, so it’s a sonic upgrade right at the very source of the playback chain that you wouldn’t have gotten any other way! In terms of sonic gains, it beats fannying about with cables, and other aspects of your system’s performance, that’s for sure!! ;)
Marco.
Now you've got me intrigued!! Are there any threads on this subject on AoS? If not maybe we should start one?
Question ... don't you end up having to carry 'reference books' or similar when visiting record dealers? I mean, I assume it's an endless subject. Is there a reference source which explains the mysteries of codes and stamper numbers and all that stuff? On second thought ... forget it ... I have always avoided 'collecting' obsessions for fear I'd turn into a train-spotter :uhho:
Note this has nothing to do with different LP pressings/releases of the same album on vinyl - like Marco's example of the Porky's Gaucho. That is a different thing altogether and I agree it is worth seeking out the best LP pressing of an album since that can make a significant difference.
Well, put it this way, you won’t be able to hear Gaucho (or any other LP) at its best by using any method other than ensuring you’ve got the best pressing in the first place! ‘Source first’, and all that, and that ’source’ comes into play way before any playback equipment does…
Quite simply, if you care passionately about hearing your favourite music at its best, then this shit matters ;)
More later after lunch!
Marco.
Now you've got me intrigued!! Are there any threads on this subject on AoS? If not maybe we should start one?
Question ... don't you end up having to carry 'reference books' or similar when visiting record dealers? I mean, I assume it's an endless subject. Is there a reference source which explains the mysteries of codes and stamper numbers and all that stuff? On second thought ... forget it ... I have always avoided 'collecting' obsessions for fear I'd turn into a train-spotter :uhho:
Hi Peter,
Simples - take your smart phone with you, whenever you’re record shopping, and look it up on Google! ;)
Marco.
Stratmangler
22-11-2014, 12:33
Hi Peter,
Simples - take your smart phone with you, whenever you’re record shopping, and look it up on Google! ;)
Marco.
Says he who said he wouldn't succumb to having such a device ..... :lol:
Hehehehe - I haven’t; I just learn from mates, who are way more anal about this stuff than me, (fortunately I have a fairly retentive memory) :eyebrows:
Marco.
better than a retentive anal :lol:
That’s your department, sweetheart ;)
Marco.
alas true. ...but i have medicine for it! ...ffs im off agaasinnn...
Canetoad
22-11-2014, 23:40
It's a shame the Oasis boys wanted certain of their recordings to sound so poor, 'cos there's some decent content in some of the songs. I am very fully aware that they wanted the material to sound that way, so that's their choice, poor as it is :mental:
They sounded even worse live!
Haselsh1
23-11-2014, 10:52
I kind of like playing the rhythm guitar parts of Oasis' songs at the moment when I am practising guitar. The chords have quite a nice 'feel' to them and they sound excellent through a nice 'crunchy' Vox amplifier.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.